Let alone Hubbert never saying this, do you have any reference where anyone else has claimed that a multi modal profile is the expected result of production of a finite resource?



Then you misunderstand my intent. I simply want to know where the originator of the theory said anything remotely resembling what you are claiming in his stead.

Hubbert said natural gas production in the US would peak back in the 70's. It did. Hubbert did not say that the production decline would be reversed a decade later to achieve, or nearly achieve, a peak of the same size as the original nearly 40 years after the first one. It strikes me that this claim would literally stand the peak oil theory on its head by doing away with the very relevance of any peak, at any time, being meaningful.

If multi modal peaks are expected, as you appear to be claiming, then peak conventional in 2005 or peak all liquids in 2008 is completely irrelevant, we can just wait around another decade, or two, or three, or four, until the next one arrives, and continue happily on our way to ever higher production rates.

Net Energy kills shale gas.

Friday, November 20, 2009
Chesapeake Energy Well Blowout Kills One Displaces Neighborhood

A Chesapeake Energy gas well blowout killed one, injured another, caused a neighborhood to be evacuated and sent at least 6 fire fighters to the hospital. The blowout spewed natural gas methane into the air for about 30 minutes.

This well was 300 feet from a house.

US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

As long as we use 1/10 of what we now use:

There is little correlation between initial production rates (IP) and ultimately recoverable reserves (EUR).

Price of NatGas gets the well drilled:

NYMEX NatGas = $5.67

Are you arguing against it? If you're just trying to lambast peakers, as usual, please provide several references where those who recognise limits state categorically that "peak theory" insists that multiple peaks (as you put it) are not possible.
I don't regard anyone as infallible. Hubbert's idea is still sound, though, even if he didn't foresee the production curve in detail. It's difficult to keep a straight face reading that. This is all about the overall shape of the curve, not the detailed peturbations along the way. Of course there will be undulations. If you don't deny that then why are you here if you think peak is irrelevant?

Could you please explain, to those of us who aren't familiar with how one interacts with the other, exactly how this claim relates to any particular shale gas well, shale gas field, shale formation, or economic activity related to any of these items, spanning any of the shale gas developed in either this century, or either of the other two during which time shale gas has been drilled for, produced, sold and used to heat a home or provide lighting?

Tony may call pointing out the obvious "a snide comment", but I would refer you to Figure 1.

http://info.drillinginfo.com/wireline/2 ... ery-wrong/

The coefficient of determination is approximately 0.86.

Do you have an reason to suspect that this calculation is incorrect?

Are you kidding? I've got dozens of examples showing just such a multi modal profile.....and an entire thread dedicated to arguing about the why, and what it means, etc etc.

You appear to imply that this multi modal profile is now part of accepted peaker mythology.....I am simply asking for a reference other than your claim or the obvious examples I am already aware of. If it is accepted peaker fact that peak doesn't matter because it'll peak again, later, multiple times, I want to know who has shown this to be true, or is arguing what I consider to be a core issue of the entire debate.



If peak oil is no longer about a single peak, because we'll have these massive upswings in rates decades between peaks, for an unknown number of times, suddenly, any single peak is irrelevant and the entire question devolves back into the argument thread of either how long do we have to wait to know if the most current peak is THE peak, or how many more peaks can reasonably be expected to be out in front of us.

As usual a distraction. There is no single scientific or government body that measures fossil-fuel production around the world. (There isn't even single definition of what would be measured so (BP?) mixes in some natural gas with with all liquids like ethanol, while (EIA?) only measures conventional crude). We will never know the exact moment when world production begins its decline.

Plus, as TonyPrep has said repeatedly--no one, not Campbell, Defreyes, Simmons, Hubbert et. al. even claimed the historical production curve for any field or the entire planet would appear symmetrical or smooth. Hubbert's curve is merely a model--geologic, political, industrial, and economic--and is useful to suggest patterns and trends. No one ever claimed Hubbert a seer or his work infallible. Just suggestive.

So after a year of blather, distraction and self-important punditry, Short continues to refine his silly multi-peak dismissal of the peak oil theory whether applied to NG or liquid petroleum. He continues to attack a logical fallacy, the straw man whereas any disputed peak disproves real peak. Nonsense.

did you even read this report? That nice .86 rate depends on "using Maximum Monthly production rate as “IP" (initial production) rather than the more reasonable coefficient that Berman uses (with the first month of production against EUR)..

Peak oil (and other resources) is about the extraction profile of a finite resource. Assuming free access to that resource, the most abundant, cheapest, highest quality reserves are extracted first and, for a time, production can keep up with a growing demand. Eventually, it starts to become harder to keep up with growing demand as high quality reserves become more difficult to find, as reserves become depleted, and so on. Occasionally, a technological breakthrough or the odd large high quality discovery is made and production can rise again for a while but, the upswings become rarer and so come later in the decline curve. Consequently, later peaks become less and less likely to match earlier peaks. Geopolitical and other restraints muddy the production profile a lot.

Of course, you know all this but it's worth mentioning it again because it shows that the overall shape of the curve is important as it demonstrates the futility of relying on a particular resource (ultimately on any resource) for your societal wellbeing. Estimating the timing of that idealised peak is also important as it can give your society some breathing space to make changes, if that peak is recognised. If all you do is try harder to get another peak going, then the resource is wasted on BAU instead of change to cope with the inevitable.

Peak is not irrelevant if there are multiple peaks. However, if you think it is, then, again, why are you here on this forum?

He is a paid troll? An investment scammer?

That Shorty was able to:

--wade through a technical paper (the Drillinginfo Wireline paper above),
--find the pertinent (though incorrect) supporting value among much (assumed) disinformation,
--report it confidently as truth without realizing the implication.

suggests Shorty was tutored. Very poorly.

Hello? Who is it that didn't read the report?

In other words, the article is saying you SHOULDN'T use the "real" IP rate to determine EUR, because that's not very predictive. The article is saying you should either use the SECOND month of production or, most optimally, the MAXIMUM month of production, which often *isn't* the first month.

Or even how many times it will do so. I still maintain that peak oil 1979 was much more severe than peak oil 2005.



So when Laherrere says:

"King Hubbert in his famous paper of 1956 ("Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels," API drilling and production practice) describes the future production curve of the US 48 states as a symmetrical (or bell-shaped) curve without giving any equation" he really didn't describe Hubberts work properly?

Perhaps you wish to clarify your statement in light of actual information to the contrary? Or perhaps you wish to refute Laherrere's qualifications to comment on the subject?

Hubbert's curve is a model of oil production. Consequently, and especially for future production, it can never show the precise detail that you yearn for. Give it up.

Obviously Oilfinder noticed the pertinent explanation.

While the confusion displayed over the differences between whatever you and Pstarr think "smooth" is and the actual shape of a bimodal shaped curve is interesting, it has nothing to do with precision in either case.

Bimodal is not bell shaped, and Hubbert most certainly referenced one, and not the other. When reality contradicts someone's theoretical presentation, it is not reality which requires the adjustment.

Then please publish your "bimodal" peak theory. I'm sure that there are many eager minds waiting to pore over the wisdom therein. Perhaps after the March peak is nearly matched by yet another peak, we'll have a shortonbrains poster advocating a trimodal distribution and starting a topic on when we can finally say that the next, quadrimodal, peak will be the last ever.

There is no such thing. I suppose someone could manufacture one just as quickly as they might a "logistic" peak theory, or a "normal" peak theory, or a "polynomial to the nth degree" peak theory.

I think the complexities of why a given rate exists has more to do with many underlying factors which may, or more likely may not, follow any particular profile guessed at in advance.

Sure. The price of gas stays below $6 and the well doesn't get drilled.

Reminds me of $6 soy. Yeah, the soy keeps coming, but more
and more farmers go out of bizness while the Latifundia/Monsanto/
Bunge Combine gets the Fed Subsidy and Value Added Product.

A Ponzi that can't happen with Energy like Shale Gas. Cause Energy is where the 'Subsidy' is coming from.

You can watch CHK go BK and XOM exercising it's Quit Clause
w/ XTO for details.

Can ANYONE produce a 60 month production profile
of a Barnett/Haynesville/Fayetteville Shale Gas well?

I sure would like to see it?

Really? Well, lets test this idea. Natural gas wellhead pricing went under $6/mcf in November of 2008. Here's a little company which just happens to drill Fayetteville gas shales.

"For the first nine months of 2009, Southwestern placed a total of 324 operated wells on production in the Fayetteville Shale play, all of which were horizontal wells fracture stimulated using slickwater."

http://www.swn.com/operations/pages/fay ... shale.aspx

HOLY GADZOOKS MCGOWAN MAN!!!!!

How DARE someone produce shale gas when the price is less than $6/mcf!!! But wait!!! You said, "the well doesn't get drilled"!! So perhaps I am mistaken by counting all the wells being newly turned into the line. So lets investigate further!

In that same reference, we find this little gem.

"The company currently has 17 drilling rigs running in its Fayetteville Shale play area, 13 that are capable of drilling horizontal wells and 4 smaller rigs that are used to drill the vertical portion of the wells."

WHAT!!!! Not only are they drilling, but they have these drilling rigs drilling BUNCHES!!!!

I give up.....whaddaya say we put this one in the same pile as the 50 million starving Americans and we find a topic which you can post on which doesn't lead straight to "foot in mouth" syndrome?